4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Held by Conference Call
The committee held a meeting via conference call, open to the public, to discuss court interpreter funding and proposed revisions to a number of information technology project allocations.
|Opening and Approval of Jan 30 Meeting Minutes|
|Item 1: Court Interpreter Allocations (action item)|
|Item 2: IMF Allocations for 2014-2015 (action item)|
|Item 3: Trial Court Trust Fund (action item)|
|Item 4: WAFM Adjustment Request from Superior Court of Mendocino County (action tem)|
Item 5: Budget Cost Priorities (BCP) for 2015-2016
|Item 6: 1% Cap (discussion item)|
|Item 7: Allocation of Monies Above 1% (discussion item)|
|Opening and Approval of Jan 16 Minutes|
|Item 1: Telecommunication (LAN/WAN) Program Allocation from the IMF for 2013–2014 |
Post-meeting summary: A motion was made and approved unanimously to approve the recommendation of the Court Information Technology Management Forum (CITMF) of an increase in $6,868,480 in 2013–2014 to the Telecommunications program’s Judicial Council-approved allocation of $8,740,000. The total recommended budget of $15,608,480 is recommended to be used as follows:
• $2,100,000 for the master maintenance agreement for 58 courts; and
• $9,758,480 for technology refresh projects for 13 courts with program savings used to provide a new LAN/WAN infrastructure at Alpine Superior Court and prioritize the core technology refresh at Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Superior Courts.
Zlatko Theodorovic indicated that the recommendation would be presented to the Judicial Council members by way of circulating order so that the item can be addressed without the need to wait for the next formal council meeting.
Item 2: Judicial Council Request Related to Court Interpreter Funding and Reimbursement
Item 3: Workload-Based Allocation and Funding Methodology
Post-meeting summary: A motion was made and approved unanimously to recommend that the Judicial Council approve that starting in 2014–2015, Workload-Based Allocation Funding Model (WAFM) cluster 1 courts no longer be exempt from having their historical base funding reallocated using WAFM.
|Opening and Approval of Aug 14, 2013|
|Update on Governor’s Budget for 2014–2015|
|Item 2: Allocation of Court-Appointed Counsel Fees Costs Recovered from Juvenile Court-Appointed Dependency Counsel Cases (action item)|
Item 3: Allocation of Domestic Violence—Family Law Interpreter Program Funding (action item)
Part 1: Public Comment and Discussion
|Item 4: Recommendations of the Realignment Subcommittee (action item)|
Item 5: Recommendations of the Funding Methodology Subcommittee (action item)
Item 6: Preliminary Recommendations of the Revenue and Expenditure Subcommittee (discussion item)
Part 1: Recommendations 2-9
|Item 7: Security Growth Funding for Courts with Marshals (action item)|